in line with an edwards noted a fair that pivots into the controversy about snowed in and those surveillance programs. in ministration official says the president will announce today new measures to increase transparency and restore public trust in those programs. the president can get form policy questions on al qaeda, the closing of u.s. embassies in africa and the middle east, israel, benghazi, to messy policy issues splitting possible questions and importation of obamacare, the budget battle with republicans, the irs scandal, the economy and i would like to ask him about his search for the next head of the federal reserve come as you know there are three candidates. larry summers, current vice chair, and former vice chair of the fed. david. david: everybody has their best intuition about who he is going

to pick but isn't janet more of an obama like than larry summers and the others? >> the president had larry summers worked for him and when summers came under criticism on capitol hill last weekend, meetings with democrats, the president defended him very hard the speculation summers may have the edge in this contest. david: interest in. we're going to get questions of corporate taxes are going to go down, that sort of thing? >> you'll hear about lowering corporate tax rates in exchange for funding by republicans approval for funding his stimulus programs infrastructure programs and other things that he wants to help to try to stimulate the economy and increased job creation, david. david: there is the question of what he calls these phony scandals, the irs, the use of

u.s. agencies even the sec for political tools, political purposes. will the president speak out on that at all? >> i suspect he will get a question on that one. it is still dogging this white house and still of course top of mind in the public debate and on capitol hill. david: it affected business interest with revelations about the members of the sec being approached the democratic members of congress as recently as early last year asked whether or not certain corporations had been making contributions to tea party like groups. has that gone anywhere, that investigation? >> congress is on top of that and a compass when at the house oversight and government reform committee is staying on top of it, no question, david. david: the president is excited to come out any moment now if you have a following the press conferences or other events, you

know he is more often late then on time. let's give you a brief what is happening on wall street today. the three major indices are on track actually for the worst week since june in large part due to confusion or when the fed will begin tapering the bond buying program and who will take over after turn fed chief ben bernanke leaves. dow jones industrials down about 62 points, the s&p's off less percentagewise, half as much percentagewise about 4.4, and the nasdaq down about 5.4. there are some bright spots in today's trading. getting right to the floor show. traders at the new york stock exchange and the cme. let's go to the nyse right now. what are you seeing that is exciting and moving in a positive direction? >> the only thing we are seeing of any excitement is what people are thinking about for next

week. pretty heavy economic data, of course that is one of the major flashpoints for the fed to be sent with the policy will be. the trade you will see next week is the data comes in, coming in weaker, you're going to see people getting along this market because that will signal the fed is not getting inflation that they want so they will continue to put some stimulus and qualitative easing program in there. inflation starting to heat up across the board, at home in the fed is achieving their inflation target and they absolutely will start to taper some sort in september. keep an eye on those figures for next week. we're going to trade out the last hour of this week, we still haven't violated any strong support levels switch is reevaluating waiting for next week's data. david: i am looking at a big jump in oil, what is going on there? >> a massive short covering.

better-than-expected economic news out of china. the u.s. are pumping out a record amount of crude oil right now, but the weekly inventory data, massive drawdowns. rewind back three or four weeks ago nine, 10 million. all of this oil is going to china. china starts to heat up again, we could move all the way back up to 110. david: is that a problem we're having this spike in oil they provides extra cost for companies particularly transport companies? >> will not see that for a few months. it has not been a problem for the equity market so far this year. the generations inside of the oil market or the other commodity space. the thing you have planted the equities prices right here little bit is based on the heels of the second-quarter earnings season seems like valuations got a little bit ahead of themselves and now people say we are at the higher end of the 10-year average.

take a little money off the table, seasonally economic data provided little bit o in the equity market for nothing to get too excited about. will consolidate the next couple of sessions and decide whether to move higher or lower based on those numbers. david: do either of you care who follows ben bernanke? >> i think if you see janet follow him, we will see the quantitative easing policies. if larry summers comes in, he'll restated he thinks it has had little to nothing inside of the economy and that is what he is looking at. david: will we see a drop in the market if it is larry summers? >> there is a possibility. you won't see any taper duration of the year. they will hold off, no sense in stopping right now. we have not seen any major impact on the market whatsoever. keep on getting it going, get the new fed president allocated into the market.

david: the president of the united states, let's listen in. president obama: building a better bargain for the middle class and for americans who want to work that went the middle class. at the same time i'm focused on my number one responsibility as commander-in-chief, that is keeping the american people safe. in recent days we have been reminded once again about the threats to our nation. as i said at the national defense university back in may, in meeting those threats we had to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms. as part of this rebalancing i called for a review of our surveillance programs. unfortunately rather than an orderly and lawful process, to debate these issues and come up with appropriate reforms, repeated leaks of classified information have initiated the debate in a very passionate but not always fully informed way. now, keep in mind as a senator

expressed a healthy skepticism about these programs. as president i've taken steps to make sure they have strong oversight by all three branches of government. clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the american people. but given the history of abuse by governments, it is right to ask questions about surveillance. particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives. i'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas because american leadership around the world depends upon the example of american democracy and american openness. because what makes us different from other countries not simply our ability to secure our nation, but it is the way we do it with open debate and democratic process. in other words it is not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. the american people need to have confidence in them as well.

that is why over the last few weeks i have consulted members of congress who, this issue from many different perspectives. i had asked the oversight board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into attention and directed the national security team to be more transparent and pursue reforms of our laws and practices. today i would like to discuss for specific steps that we will be taking very shortly to move the debate forward. first, i will work with congress to pursue appropriate reforms to section 215 of the patriot act. the program that collects telephone records. as i have said this program is an important tool in our efforts to disrupt terrorist plots. it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. but given the scale of this program i understand the concerns of those who would worry it could be subject to abuse. so after having a dialogue with

members of congress and civil libertarians, i believe there are steps you can take to give american people confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse. for instance we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, trader transparency and constraints on the use of this authority. i look forward to working with congress to meet those objectives. second, i will work with congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. it was created by congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities that a federal judge must find our actions are consistent with the constitution. however to build greater conduct we should consider changes. one of the concerns people raise was a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct surveillance only hears one side of the story.

they tilt it too far in favor of security may not pay enough attention to liberty. while i have confidence in the court, they have done a fine job, i think we can provide greater assurances the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives, security and privacy. specifically we can take steps to ensure civil liberties, concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by ensuring the government's position is challenged by an adversary. number three, we can and must be more transparent. select the mac so i directed them to make as much information public as possible. we've already declassified unprecedented information about the nsa, but we can go further. my direction is to make public the legal rationale for the collection activities under section 215 of the patriot act. the nsa is taking steps to put in place a full-time civil

liberties and privacy officer and released information a detailed its mission authorities and oversight. finally creating a website that will serve as a hub for further transparencies. this will give americans and the world the ability to learn more about what it does and what it does not do, how it carries out its mission and why it does so. reforming a high level group of outside experts to review and ee intelligence and communications technologies. we need new thinking for a new era. we now have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a haystack of global telecommunications. imeanwhile technology is given government putting our own like unprecedented kit will be to monitor it. i am tas testing this independet group to step back and review our capabilities particularly

surveillance technologies and they can consider how to maintain the trust of the people, make sure they are absolutely no abuse in terms of how these surveillance activities aae used, ask how surveillance impacts foreign-policy, particularly when more and more information is becoming public, and providing an interim report in 60 days and if i'll report by the end of this year so we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, privacy and our foreign policy. all these steps are designed to ensure the american people can trust our efforts are in line with our interest and our values. to others around the world i want to make clear once again america is not interested in spying on ordinary people. our intelligence is focused above all on finding information necessary to protect our people and in many cases protect our allies.

it is true, we have significant capabilities. it is also true is we show a restraint that many governments around the world don't even think to do. refuse to show. that includes some of america's most vocal critics. we should not forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information online under strict guidelines and for narrow purposes and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say online. let me close with one additional thought. the men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values. they are patriots, i believe those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want us to live up to our highest ideals.

so this is how we're going to resolve our differences in the united states through vigorous debate guided by the constitution with reverence for our history as a nation of laws and with respect for the facts. with that i'll take questions. we'll start with julie of the ap. >> thank you, mr. president. wanted to ask of the foreign-policy followed of the disclosure of the nsa program you have discussed. your spokesperson said there's no question the u.s. relationship with russia has gotten worse since vladimir putin has taken office. must decline to putin giving you have had a working relationship with his predecessor? and will there be any punitive measures taken against russia for granting asylum to edward snowden or canceling the september summit really all you can do given host of issues the u.s. needs cooperation for?

president obama: there has always been some tension in the u.s.-russian relationship after the fall of the soviet union. it has been competition in some areas. it is truly my first four years in working with the president, we made a lot of progress. we were able to cooperate together on iran sanctions. they provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in afghanistan. we were able to get russia into the wto. it is goodcompetent businesses e they're more likely to follow international forms and rules. a lot of good work that has been done and that is going to continue to be done. what is also true is when president putin came back into power, i think we saw more rhetoric on the russian side

that was anti-american that played into some of the old stereotypes about the cold war contest between the united states and russia, and i have encouraged mr. putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues with mixed success. latest episode is just one more in a number of emergent differences we have seen over the last several months around syria, around human rights issues where it has probably been appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is russia is going, what our interests are, and calibrate the relationship so that we are

doing stuff that is good for the united states and hopefully good for russia as well, but recognizing there will be some differences and we will not be able to completely disguise them. and that is okay. although i am not attending the summit, i will still be going to st. petersburg because russia's hosting the g20. it is important business for our economy and our jobs and the issues concerning americans. i know one question that has been raised is how do we approach the olympics. i want to make very clear right now do not think it is appropriate to boycott the olympics. we have a bunch of americans training hard who are doing everything they can to succeed. nobody is more offended than me by some of these antigay and lesbian the station you have been seeing in russia but as i said, just this week i have

spoken out against that's not just with respect to russia, but a number of other countries where we continue to work with them but we have a strong disagreement on this issue. one of the things i'm looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home the gold or silver or bronze. which i think would go a long ways in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we are seeing. if russia does not have gay or lesbian athletes, that will probably make their team weaker. keep in mind that our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around mr. snowden. it had to do on a whole range of issues where we think we can make some progress, russia has not moved. so we don't consider that strictly punitive.

we will assess where the relationship can advance u.s. interests and increase peace and stability around the world, where it can we will keep working with them. where we have differences, we will say so clearly. my hope is over time mr. putin and russia recognize that rather than a zero-sum competition, in fact of the two countries are working together, we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples. >> thank you mr. president. given your nostril much of reforms by the leaks edward snowden made and all the surveillance of mems, does your mindset change about him, is he now more whistleblower that he is a hacker as you called him at

one point or somebody that should be filed charges and should he be provided more protection. is he a patriot? and to follow-up on the personal. spiegel everybody asking one question would be helpful. >> can you get stuff done with russia, big stuff done without having a good personal relationship with putin? president obama: i don't have a bad working relationship with putin. they are candid, they are blunt. oftentimes they are constructi constructive. i know the press likes to focus on body language, he has that slouch looking like a bored kid in the back of the classroom, but the truth is when we're in conversations together, often times it is very productive. the issue here has to do with where do they want to take russia? substantive on a policy front.

no, right now this is just a matter of where mr. putin and the russian people want to go. if they're looking forward the 21st century and how they can advance their economy and make sure some are joint concerns around counterterrorism are managed effectively, i think we can work together. if issues are framed as if the u.s. is for it, russia should be against it or we will be finding ways where we can poke each other at every opportunity, probably don't get as much stuff done. so now i have forgotten your first question which was presumably the more important one. no i don't think he was a patriot. as i said in my opening remarks, i called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations

before he made these leaks. my preference, and i think the american people's preference would have been for lawful, orderly examination of these laws. a thoughtful, fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place because i never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws have been put in place somehow did not require potentially some additional reforms, that is exactly what i called for. so the fact is mr. snowden has been charged with three felonies. if in fact he believes what he did was right, like every

american citizen he can come here and appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case. if the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, i signed an executive order well before he leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection for the first time. so there were other avenues available for somebody who's conscious was stirred and thought they needed to question t but having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we have seen this information come out in drips and drabs, sometimes coming out sideways. once information is out, the administration comes in, tries to correct the record but by

that time it is too late and we have moved on and a general impression has i think taken hold that only among the public but around the world that somehow we are out there just soaking in information and everybody and doing what we please with it. that is not the case. our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling u.s. persons without a warrant. there are home whole bunch of safeguards put in place to make sure that that basic principle is abided by. but what is clear is that whether because of the instinctive bias of the intelligence community to keep everything very close, and probably what is a fair criticism is my assumption that

if we had checks and balances from the courts and congress that traditional system of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurance these programs were run properly. that assumption proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. people have questions about this program, and so as a consequence i think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions. rather than have a trunk, out here and a legcome out here and let's put out the whole elephant so people know exactly what they are looking at, let's examine what is working, what is not, are there additional protections that can be put in place and let's move forward. there's no doubt his leaks triggered a much more rapid and

passionate response than would have been the case of ahead i hd simply pointed this review board to go through and sat down with congress and work this thing through, it would have been less exciting, it would not have generated as much press. i think they would've gotten to the same place and we would have done so without putting at risk our ational security and some very vital ways we were able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to ask about this debate playing itself out in editorial pages and the blogger sphere about the choice you eventually will make up the next federal chairman. there is a perception among democrats that larry summers has the inside track and perhaps

made assurances to him about that. there are many women in the senate who are democrats. you believe it would be historic and important. are you annoyed by the debate, do you find it anyway on seemingly and listen whileehe most important if not the most important decisions you will make the remainder of your presidency? president obama: it is definitely one of the most important economic decision that will make the remainder of my presidency. the federal reserve chairman is not just one of the most important economic policymakers in america, he or she is one of the most important policymakers in the world. that person presumably will stay on after i am president. so this along with supreme court appointments is probably as important as i make as president. i have a range of outstanding candidates. you mentioned two of them.

they are both terrific people. i think the perception mr. summers has an inside track had to do with a bunch of attacks i was airing preemptively which is a standard washington exercise that i don't like, when somebody has worked hard for me and worked hard on behalf of the american people, and i know the quality of those people, i see them getting slapped around in the press for no reason before they have even been nominated for anything. i felt the same way when people were attacking susan rice.

my main criteria, i stated this before, my main criteria for the federal reserve chairman is somebody who understands they have a dual mandate, a critical part of the job is making sure that we keep inflation in check and my trade policy is sound, the dollar is sound, those are critical components of the job we have seen happens when the fed is not paying attention. we saw prior to paul volcker coming into place inflation shooting up. the other mandate is full employment. right now the biggest challenges we have, the challenge is not inflation, the challenges we

still have too many people out of work, too many long-term unemployed, too much slack in the economy, and we are not growing as fast as we should. so i want a fed chairman who is able to look at those issues and have a perspective that keeps an eye on inflation, makes sure we do not have artificial bubbles in place but recognizes a big part of my job is to make sure the economy is growing quickly and robustly and is sustained and durable so that people who work hard in this country can find a job. frankly i think both larry summers and janet yellen are highly qualified candidates. a couple other candidates highly qualified as well. i will make the decision in the fall we had

>> except i just told you i have not. so i would defend u.s. someone was saying something that was not a troop of value. [laughter] i really would. in fact, have done that in the white house. [laughter] carol lee, and congratulations on hudson. do you have pictures? >> i do. them.am going to have to see >> i appreciate you making it as slow news week. i wanted eutectic ever wanted to ask you about the surveillance issue. part of what you're talking about today is restoring the public trust, and the public as senior devolve from your in the u.s. senate to now. even as recently as june you said that the process is such that people should be comfortable with it. people should be comfortable. weigela change your position

multiple times? >> i am involved in my assessment. i consistently have said that when i came into office i evaluated them. when i look through it specifically what was being done the two programs in particular the two programs in particular intelligence that helps us protect the american people. we also saw was that some bulls need to be tightened. we initiated and plans to mike compliance audits. if you look at the airports,

even that disclosures that mr. snowden has been putting forward, all of the stories would have been written. what you are not reading is the government actually abusing these programs and listening in on people's phone calls or inappropriately reading people's e-mails. you're looking at the prospect that these programs could be abused. part of the reason is because these checks are not in place. those abuses would be against the law and the orders of the best. having said that, though, if you are outside of the intelligence community, the ordinary person as far seeing a bunch of headline saying u.s., big hone records,ng down onion, well, understandably people will be concerned.

i would be, too, if i was not inside the government. and so in light of the changed environment where old set of questions have been raised, some in the most sensationalized manner possible where these leaks are released drew by drip in no one a week to kind of maximize attention and see if they can catch us as some indecision on something in light of that it makes sense for us to go ahead and layout with sec here during, have a discussion with congress, a discussion with industry which is also impacted by this, the civil libertarians and city if we can do this better.

i think that the main thing i want to emphasize is a law have an interest in the people of the nsa. making sure that where we can prevent a terrorist attack raking give permission that time where we're able to carry out batting critical tasks we do not have an interest in doing anything other than that we tried to sell the bus system that is as fail-safe as so far at least we haven't will think of to make sure that these programs are not abused people may have better ideas. people want said jiggles limits when the balance between the animation that we can get verses

encroachments on privacy that it has not already -- if has not already take place might take place in future administrations are as technology advances further. the other thing is happening is as technology advances further and may provide this additional figures. but the courts and congress are sufficient to give this congress but the government is not saving. maybe we can embed technologies in the event prevent this new bank regardless of what the government wants to do. there may be some technological fixes that provide another layer of assurance, and so those are the kinds of things that i am looking forward to having a conversation about.

[inaudible question] >> i can't. >> the fact that i said that the programs are operating in no way that prevents abuse, that continues to be true without the @%forms. the question is, how do i make the american people more comfortable? if i tell michelle that i did the dishes, granted in the white house i don't do the dishes that much, but back in the day. and she is a little skeptical, well, i would like to trust me, but men need to bring her back and share the dishes and not

just suffer take my word for it. and so did the program is really being abused and the american people examines exactly how it was taking place, with the safeguards were, that they would say, you know what it, these folks are following the law and doing what they said they're doing. but is absolutely true that with the expansion and technology this is an area moving very with the revelations that have depleted public trusts. there are additional pitch things we can do to build that trust backup them we should do them. john and then karl. >> thank you, mr. president. you have said that core al qaeda

is decimated. we have seen this report. do you still believe that al qaeda has been decimated? if i could ask, in the interest of transparency, can you tell us about these jaws strikes we have seen over the last couple of weeks in the man? >> what i said in this same national defense speech back in may that that referred to earlier is that court al qaeda is on its yields -- heels, has been decimated, but what i also said was that al qaeda and other extremists have metastasized into regional groups that can pose significant dangers, and i refer you back to the speech in may where i said specifically that although there are less likely to be able to carry unspectacular homeland attacks

like september 11th, they have the capacity to go after our embassies. they have the capacity potentially to go after business . they have the capacity test the destabilizing and destructive in countries where the security apparatus is weak. and that is exactly what we are seeing right now. it is entirely consistent to say that this tightly organized and relatively centralized al qaeda that attacked us on september 11th has been broken apart and is very weak and does not have a lot of operational capacity. and to say we still have these regional organizations like a qap that can pose a threat and dry potentially a truck bomb into an embassy wall until some people.

and so that requires us then said make sure that we have a strategy that is strengthening those partners so that they have their own capacity to deal with is a potentially manageable regional credit these countries a stronger and a more effective ct and so forth and means that we have got to continue to be vigilant and go after known terrorists who are potentially coming up -- carrying out plots or are going to strengthen their always testing the boundaries of maybe we can try this and do that. this is an ongoing process. we are not going to completely eliminate terrorism. what we can do is we can it and to strengthen our partnerships in such a way that it does not

pose the kind of horrible threat that we saw on september 11th. and i am not going to discuss specific operations that have taken place. again, in my speech in may and was very specific about how we make these determinations about potential legal strikes. so i would refer you to the speech. i will not have a discussion about operational issues. >> i hope you would defend me as well. >> i would. >> okay. thank you. 110 as u.s. to important dates coming up. you recently decided on their own to delay a key part of that. if you could choose what parts of a lot to employment could your successor down the road pick and choose whether they will implement your line keep it

in place. make no mistake we will bring to justice the killers to attack our people. eleven months later, where are they, sir? >> i also said that we would get it osama bin laden, and that did not get him in 11 months. so we have informed, i think, the public that there is a steal the environment. it is for reason, we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we're going to stay on until we get them. i will leave it at that. but this remains a top priority for us. anybody who attacks americans and kills tragically for americans who are serving as an a very dangerous place, we will do everything we can to get this to carry up as a tax.

with respect to health care, did not simply choose to the latest on my own. this was not in consultation with businesses all across the country. many of whom are supportive of the affordable care act and many have come, by the way, are already providing health insurance of their employees but were concerned about the operational details of changing their operations if they have a lot of employees was to be costly for them and then suggesting maybe easier ways to do this. now, what is true is that in a normal political environment it would have been easier for me to simply call -- call of the speaker and say, you know what, this is the tweet that does not go to the essence of the law. it has to do with, for example,

are we able to simplify the added station employers as to whether they are already providing health insurance are not? it looks like there may be some better ways to do this. let's make a tactical -- technical chased a lot. when not in a normal atmosphere right here. this is not go to the core of implementation. what is the core of implementation that has already taaen place, as we speak right now with 85 percent of americans already have health insurance, they're benefiting from being a will to keep decade on their plan if the kid is 26 and younger which is benefiting millions of people around the country which is why it has gone down.

that is in large part attributable to the steps that we take. if insurance company is not spending 80 percent of your premium on your health care you get some money back. low and behold people have been getting their money back which means that the folks who have been bumping up with lifetime limits on their insurance, it leaves them vulnerable. that does not exist. seniors have been getting discounts on their prescription drugs. that is happening right now. -- three preventive care, contraception. that is happening right now. i met a young man today on a bill signing was doing with the student loan bill who came up to me and said, thank you. he could not have been more than 25, 26 years old. thank you. i have cancer. thanks to the affordable care act or in with the california program was able to get health

care and i am not in remission. so right now people are already benefiting. what happens on october 1st in 53 days is for the remaining 15% of the population that does not have health insurance, they're going to be able to go on a website or call up the call center and sign out for affordable, quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market. and even with lower premiums they still cannot afford it, we will be able to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it. end between october 1st, and of march, there will be an open enrollment in which millions of americans for the first time are going to be able to get affordable of care. now, i think that the really interesting question is why it

is that my friends in the other party have made the area of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail, number one priority, the one unifying principle in the republican party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don't have health care. and presumably repealing all those benefits i just mentioned, kids staying on their parents plan, seniors hitting discounts on prescription drugs. i guess a return to a life term limits on insurance, continuing to be blocked from being able to get health insurance is hard to understand as an agenda that is going to strengthen our middle-class. at least they used to say, well, we will replace it with something better. there is not even a pretense that there will replace it with

something better. the notion is simply that those 30 million people, the 150 million benefiting from the other aspects of affordable care will be better off without it. that is their assertion. not backed by fact, not backed by any evidence. it has just become an ideological fixation. i tell you what, they are wrong about that. there is no doubt that in implementing the of water will care act, a program of this significance, there will be glitches. things are we say we should have thought of that earlier or this will work better or needs an adjustment. that was true of social security, medicare, the children's health insurance program, true of prescription drug program part be rolled up

by a republican president and supported by republicans who are still in the house representatives. that is true, by the way, of a car company rolling out in a car. that -- you will be a will to whenever you want of a course of the next six months find occasions where you say i don't want that -- that could have been no overt better. that's show was a result it bought. our goal is a liver high quality and the four will alter the people and reform the system so costs are going down and people getting too far start getting a better bang for the buck. i make no apologies for that. let me just make one last point about this. the area that you would shut down the government unless

you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad idea. you what you should be thinking about this outcome -- how can we in vance -- advanced and improve ways for middle-class families have some security. >> thank you, mr. president. following on what you just said republicans might give you that choice to allow the government to shut down rc obamacare defunded. would you choose to let the government shut down to ensure that obamacare remain funded? >> i'm not going to engage in had sabbaticals. i can tell you that the american people would have difficulty understanding why we would weaken our economy, shut down our government, shutdown vital

services, have people who are not kidding paid and then can i go to restaur clothes or all of the other things that we're doing here because republicans have determined that they don't want to see these folks get health care. again, they used to say -- that never actually arrived. i have been hearing about this whole replace bang for two years and now i just don't because basically they don't have an agenda to provide health insurance to people at affordable rates. the idea that you would shut down the government at a time when error recovery was getting some traction core we're growing, although not as fast as we need to, the housing market is recovering, although not as

guests were with like, that we would precipitate another crisis here in washington that no economist thinks is a good deal. i am assuming that there will not take that path. i am confident that common-sense will prevail. [inaudible question] >> we will see what happens. >> fairly recently. avenue. scott. >> the strong showing by latino voters does lassie and serve resonate with a lot of reporters

here represent overwhelmingly white districts. what can you bring to bear? >> our economy would be a trillion dollars stronger if we get immigration reform done. we have got evidence that a housing market would be stronger if immigrants are in a situation in which having paid the fine, having paid back taxes, that they now have the ability to actually enter into thous market we have strong evidence that our technological and research edge would be better if we keep immigration reform down. we know that the senate bill strengthens border security. under presidents of the resources on top of what has already been put on to the border security. the main priority is border

security at think you want to vote for this bill. we know that the senate bill creates a system in which employers are held accountable for mayor undocumented workers. so when i hear the opposition said immigration reform, i just rented a list of a set we are concerned about. and like what the senate bill doesn't say to myself, the senate bill actually improves the situation on every issue doesn't solve the problem 100%. i don't know a law that solve as problem 100%. social security lifted millions

of seniors out of poverty but there are still some poor seniors. the civil rights act and voting rights act drastically reduced discrimination in america but there is still discrimination. it doesn't make them bad laws. it just means that they're very few human problems that are 100% solvable. so what i see right now is a strong bipartisan bill coming out of the senate. i think that the speaker and others have said they need to do something. and i would urge that when they get back to do something. put forward a bill that has an opportunity to actually pass. it may not be precisely what's in the senate bill. my preference would be for them to go ahead and call the senate bill but if they have some additional ideas, i think the senate is happy to consider

them. and, get that bill on the floor. put it up for a vote. i am absolutely certain that the votes for the senate bill which strengthens border security, demands responsibility from undocumented workers to pay a fine, pay a penalty, get to the back of the line, reforms our legal immigration system, holds employers accountable, i am absolutely confident if that bill was on the floor of the house it would pass. so, the challenge right now is not that there aren't a majority of house members, just like a majority of senate members who aren't prepared to support this bill. the problem is internal republican caucus politics. and that's what the american people don't want us to be

worrying about. don't worry about your washington politics. solve problems. and this is one where you've actually got some pretty broad consensus. i don't know an issue where you have got labor, chamber of commerce, evan impel calls, student groups, name it, supportive of a bill. let's get it done. thank you very much, everybody. david: president of the united states taking a lot of different questions, some which affected the market directly as per are attended who he would choose as a replacement for ben bernanke as the chairman of the federal reserve but spending a lot of time and a lot of passion in particular on the issue of health care. peter barnes was watching along with us all. he is closer to the action than we are. let's go back to him for reaction. we knew, peter, he would be talking about the nsa and about the surveillance program. well, peter is not there yet. he did in fact mention a couple

of particular things that he was going to do to address concerns of americans about that. [closing bell ringing] about which we'll talk in a moment. meanwhile by the way the market was down big-time. we'll talk about the market in a second. but, peter, i was urprised how much time and how much passion he spent on the issue of health care. clearly he sees this as his signature piece of legislation over the two terms as president. >> absolutely, david. no question, the president defending health care reform with very tough language against republicans in congress who would like to mark it part of a budget deal at the indepent of fiscal year, sent 30th. there are some as you know who would like to defund, delay and, or eliminate obamacare all together as part of any year-end budget deal and the president forcefully defending, forcefully attacking republicans on that strategic effort,